













Or 




















%^<^ 




'^^c,^' 
































l^ . » • o - •^i V » 








'oK 







l^ ^ » • 




''^Qt 




bV 




















>.^'*^^-.o*' \--r.r'\y ^'^^'^^^-'J" V- 



"^•^l 
■b^, 



^ 










*r». 
















% <^ *i 







■•/ *^^-^^'y V--^*/ \/^*\<?^ 

^ •^^'. %.** •^^•^ \/ .•^»;' \..** /J 









C, VP 




s"^ 






<* ^ %> ' 






















SPEECH 



OF 



ME. WINTHEOR OF MASS. 



ON 



THE MEXICAN WAR, 



DELIVERED IN 



THE HOUSE OF EEPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, 



January 8, 1847. 



^ ''^ U.S. A, )] 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED BY J. & G. S. GIDEON 

1847. 



SPEECH 



The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and harino- undei* 
consideration a bill to raise for a limited time an additional military force, and for other pur- 
poses — ^ 

Mr. WINTHROP said, that if he coukl have selected his own time for ad- 
dressing the committee, he would not have followed so closely in the wake of 
his honorable and excellent friend from Georgia, (Mr. Toombs,) who had just 
taken his seat. But, after watching and struggling for the flour for three or four 
days, he could not forego the opportunity of saying what he had to say now, 
even to avoid the disadvantage of placing his remarks in immediate contrast with 
a speech which had attracted so large a measure of attention and admiration. 

I am. not prepared, (Mr. W. proceeded to say,) to vote for the bill now under 
consideration. I certainly cannot vote for it in its present shape. I doubt 
whether I can be brought to vote for it in any shape, under the present circum- 
siances of the country. But, before dealing with its particular provisions, or 
with the principles and policy which it involves, I desire to submit a few con- 
siderations of a more general and comprehensive character. 

lam not one of those, Mr. Chairman— if, indeed, there be any such in this 
House — who think it incumbent on them to vote against all supplies in a time 
of war, because. they do not approve the manner in which the war was com- 
menced, or the spirit in which it is conducted. Regarding war as an evil which 
no language can exaggerate ; deprecating nothing more earnestly than a neces- 
sity of rendering myself in any degree responsible for its existence or continu- 
ance ; desiring nothing so sincerely as an opportunity of contributing in any 
way to the peace of ray country and of the world ; I vet acknowledge That there 
are many cases in which I should feel constrained to vote men and money for 
prosecuting hostilities, even though they had originated in measures which I 
utterly condemned. I may say, in a word, and without further specification, 
that I am ready to vote for the defence of my country, now and always ; and, 
when a foreign army is on our borders, or a foreign squadron in our bays, I shall 
never be for stopping to inquire into the merits of the quarrel, or to ascertain 
who struck, or who provoked, the first blow, before doing whatever may be in my 
power to drive back the invaders, and to vindicate the inviolability of our soil. 
Nor do I forget that it may be sometimes necessaiy for our defence to carry the 
war into the enemy's country, and to cripple the resources and crush the power 
of those who may insist on disturbing our peace. When such a necessity exists, 
and is clearly manifested, I shall not shrink from meeting its responsibilities. 

And here, Mr. Chairman, let me say to the honorable member from Ohio, 
(Mr. GiDDiXGs,) that I cannot acknowledge the entire applicabiliiy to the pres- 
ent issue of those British precedents Avhich he held up for our imitation a i'ew 
days ago. I am not ready to admit that there is any very close analogy between 
the struggle of the American colonies in 1776 and that of the Mexicans now. 
Still less analogy is there between a vote of the British House of Commons and 
a vote of the American House of Representatives. A refusal of supplies in the 
Parliament of Great Britain is, generally speaking, equivalent to a change of 
Administration. No British Ministry can hold their places in defiance of si°ch a 
vote. A successful opposition to supplies in time of war is thus almost certain 
to result, in bringing forthwith into power a Ministry opposed to its further prose- 
cution ; and the kingdom is not left to encounter the dangers which might result 
from a conflict, upon such a subject, between the executive and the legislative 
powers. It IS not so here. No vote of Congress can change our Administra- 
tion. If it could, the present Administration would have expired on Saturday 
last, when a tax, which they had solemnly declared was essential to furnish 



them with the sinews of war, was so emphatically denied. If it could, the pre- 
sent Administration would have gone out on Tuesday last, when their demand 
for a Lieutenant General was so unceremoniously laid on the table. No Brit- 
ish Ministry, in these days", could have surnved for an hour two such signal de- 
feats. 

But our Ex3cutive is elected for a term of years, and his Cabinet are quite in- 
dependent of our votes. A refusal of all supplies might hamper and embarrass 
an Executive, and give an enemy the advantage of divided counsels, but could 
hardly enforce a change of policy or secure a concerted action in favor of peace. 
Certainly, it does not seem to be the mode contemplated by our Constitution for 
putting an end to a war, when it has once been commenced. The people alone 
can apply the potent styptic, the magical Brocchieri, for stopping the effusion of 
blood, if it be the Executive will that it shall continue to flow. It is their pre- 
rogative to change the Administration, and the day is coming, though farther 
off than some of us might wish, when they will have the opportunity of exer- 
cising it. 

While, therefore, sir, I yield to no one in admiration of the illustrious statesmen 
of Old England, whose names have been introduced into this debate — Burke, 
Bane, Fox, and Chatham — and honor them especially for their noble efforts ia 
behalf of American rights, I do not see my way clear to making their conduct in 
the British Parliament in 1776, the exact model of my own conduct here and now. 
I turn rather to the example and authority of American statesmen, hardly less 
distinguished, and no less worthy of admiration and imitation. If ever there 
was a man of pure life, of stern integrity, of exalted patriotism in our country, 
it was John Jay ; a member of the first Congress of the United States, and the 
author of one of those masterly papers, emanating from that body, which called 
forth the well-remembered commendation of Lord Chatham himself; the first 
Chief Justice of the United States, and of whom it has been beautifully said, that 
" when the spotless ermine of the judicial robe fell on John Jay, it touched, 
nothing not as spotless as itself." He was no friend to war in generator to the 
last war in which this country was involved in particular. But, in writing to a 
kindred spirit during the existence of that war, he expressed sentiments in which 
I so heartily concur, that I cannot forbear reading them to the committee : 

John Jay to Timothy Pickering. 

" Bedford, J^ovemher 1, 1814. 

" It is not clear to me that Britain did then expect or desire to conclude the war quite so soon. 
As to her presenter future disposition to peace, or how far it has been, or may be affected by a set- 
tled or by a still fluctuating state of things in Europe, or by calculations of our becoming more united 
or more divided, cannot now be known. If we should change our rulers, and lill their places 
Avith men free from blame, the restoration of peace might doubtless be more easily accomplished. 
Such a change will come ; but not while the prevailing popular delusion continues to deceive and 
mislead so great a portion of our citizens. 

" Things being as they are, I think we cannot be too perfectly united in a determination to 
defend our country, nor be too vigilant in watching and resolutely examining the conduct of the 
administration in all its departments, candidly and openly giving decided approbation or decided 
censure, according as it may deserve the one op the other." 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. Will my friend from Massachusetts permit* me to ofler one 
word of explanation ? 

The Speaker. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts yield the floor ? 

Mr. WiNTHROP. Certainly, sir. ^ 

. Mr. GiDDiNGS. The gentleman from Massachusetts will distinctly understand 
that, in so many words, I expressed the opinion that, if the army should be 
withdrawn within the legitimate liinits of the United States, there would be but 
one voice in the country in favor of a war to repel invasion. 

Mr. WiNTHROP. I cheerfully give the gentleman from Ohio the benefit of 



ihe explanation, and had not the slightest intention of casting any reflection apoa 
his conduct. 

Sir, I concur entirely in both the propositions contained in this paragraph 
which I have just read from the correspondence of Mr. Jay. I think " we cannot 
be too perfectly united in a determination to defend our country," wherever that 
defence may be involved, directly or indirectly, in this war and in all other wars ; 
and I think that " we cannot be too vigilant either in watching and resolutely ex- 
amining the conduct of the Administration in all its departments, candidly and 
openly giving decided approbation or decided censure, according as it may de- 
serve the one or the other." For, while I am not willing to class myself with 
those who are for refusing all supplies, even under the present circumstances of 
the war in wfiich we are engaged ; while I maintain that some provision must be 
made for the support of our armies and the defence of our country, as long as a 
foreign nation is in arms against us, declining all overtures of peace; I must also 
disavow all sympathy with those who proclaim their intention to sanction all the 
measures of the Administration, blindly and implicitly, and to vote fpr whatever 
amount of money and whatever number of men they may see fit to demand. I 
cannot regard such a course as either called for by patriotism or consistent with 
principle. Still less do 1 acquiesce in the doctrine which would impose silence 
upon all who cannot approve the conduct and policy of the Administration. I 
hiave no faith in the idea that it is necessary for us to hold our peace, in order that 
the Executive may make peace with Mexico. I believe, on the contrary, that, if 
this war is ever to be brought to an end, it is time for those who desire that con- 
summation to speak out in language not to be misunderstood. 

Indeed, sir, I know of nothing of less favorable augury for the destinies of our 
country, than the disposition which has been manifested by the Administration 
ind its friends to stifle inquiry, to suppress discussion, to overawe every thing 
ike free comment and criticism, in regard to the war in which we are now m- 
rolved. 

When any one of the vessels of our navy meets with a disaster at sea, is 
vrecked in a gale, or stranded on a lee shore, a court of inquiry is forthwith in- 
itituted as to the circumstances of the catastrophe. Her officers demand it. The 
government exact it. It is considered due to the country, as well as to all con- 
;erned, that it should be clearly seen whether there has been any carelessness or 
my culpableness on the part of any of those to whom she has been entrusted; 
.nd, if so, who is the guilty party. 

But now, when the ship of State itself has been involved in the deepest disas- 
er which can befall her, when she has been arrested in that track of tranquil li- 
•erty for which she was designed, and has been plunged into the vortex of foreign 
var, we find her commander and his officers and pilots all denouncing any inves- 
igation of their conduct, and imperiously demanding of the People and their Re- ' 
>resentatives that they shall rest satisfied with a one-sided, ex parte vindication 
if their acts and motives. All denial, all doubt of the supreme wisdom andcon- 
ummate justice of their conduct is boldly condemned from the very quarter-deck 
tself, not without ominous glances at the yard arm; and those who honestly en- 
ertain misgivings as to their course, are called upon to close their lips, or to sub- 
ait to the base imputation of" giving aid and comfort to the enemy." 

Sir, if this be an evidence of the progress of Democracy, it can only be of that 
ort of Democracy which is to find its legitimate goal in despotism. If such a 
lOCtrine is to receive the sanction of this House, we had better resort to the old 
ustom of the British Parliament, and send our Speaker, at the opening of every 
[Jongress, to the President, to beg that he will graciously grant to his most faith- 
j1 Commons the privilege of free debate. Nay, we might as well resort at once 
a the old Roman practice, in time of war, and invest our Chief Magistrate with 



the irresponsible prerogative of the Dictatorship, and leave him alone to take case 
that the Republic receives no detriment. 

We are gravely told that we may question the policy and justice of an Admin- 
istration in time of peace as much as we please; but that when we are engaged 
in war, all such questioning is unpatriotic and treasonable. So, then, Mr. Chair- 
man, if the rulers of our Republic shall content themselves with some ordinary 
measure of misconduct, with some cheap and vulgar misdemeanor, the people 
may arraign and impeach them to their heart's content. But let them only lift 
themselves boldly to the perpetration of a flagrant crime, let th'em only dare to 
commit the very worst act of which they are capable, and they are to find their 
impunity in the very enormity of their conduct, and are to be safely screened be- 
hind the mountain of their own misdoing! 

This, sir, is the length to which the President has gone in his message. This 
is the length to which gentlemen have followed him on this floor. Be it, say 
they, that this war is, in your judgment, wholly unjustifiable; be it, that it has 
been commenced by Executive assumption and usurpation; be it, that it is prose- 
cuted in a manner utterly inconsistent with the constitution of our country; yet,, 
as it is a war, and for the very reason that it is this monstrous wrong, you must 
not opftn your lips; you must not express or intimate opposition or discontent; 
you must not inquire, discuss, or do any thing but vote supplies for its vigorous 
prosecution. The enemy will hear you, and will derive "aid and comfort" from 
your conduct, and you yourselves will be guilty of treason. 

Sir, I say, let the enemy hear — let the enemy hear, and let the world hear, all 
that we say and all that we think on this subject, rather than our rights of free 
discussion shall be ilius wrenched from us, and ratner than the principles of our 
Constitution and the spirit of our Government shall thus be subverted and crushed, 

Mr. Chairman, I can find no words strong enough to express my utter repro- 
bation and condemnation of this abhorrent doctrine. The doctrine that, whenev- 
er war exists, wliether produced by the acts of others or by our own act, the Re- 
presentatives of the people are to resign all discretion and discrimination as tO' 
the measures by which, and the objects for which, it is to be carried on! The 
doctrine that, in time of war, we are bound by the obligations of patriotism to 
throw the reins on the neck of Executive power, and let it prance and plunge 
afccording to its own wild and ungoverned impulses! I have heard before of 
standing by one's country right or vjrong, and much as we may scorn such a 
sentiment as a general principle, there is at least one sense in which no man is at 
liberty to revolt at it. As a maxim of defence, in time of danger, its propriety 
canYiot be disputed. But whence came this doctrine that we are to stand by the 
Executive, right or wrong? From what soil of Democracy has it sprung? In 
Avhat part of our Republican history do you find the germ from which it has now 
so suddenly burst forth? 

Sir, the Democracy of other days is not without a voice on this subject; a 
voice of warning, a voice of rebuke, which I trust will not be heard in vain.. 
Every body will remember a celebrated controversy which occurred betweeu 
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the year 1793, on the subject of the 
Proclamation of Neutrality. But every one is not famdiar, perhaps, with the 
principles brought under consideration in that masterly discussion. I beg leave 
to refresh the memories of gentlemen with a few paragraphs from the papers of 
James Madison on that occasion: 

" Every just view that can be taken of this subject admonishes the public of the necessity of a 
rigid adherence to the simple, the received, and the fundamental doctrine of the Constitution, that, 
the power to declare war, including, the power of judging of the cau.ses of war, is fully and exclu- 
sively vested in the Legislature; that the Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the ques- 
tion whether there is or is not cause for declaring war; that the risht of convening and informing^ 
Congress, whenever such a question seems to call for a decision, is all the right which ilie Consti- 



tution has deemed requisite or proper; and that for such, more than for any other contingency, 
this right was specially given to the Executive. 

" In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides 
the question of war or peace to the legislative, and not to the executive department. Besides the 
objection to such a mixture of heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too 
great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such 
as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of 
Executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created, and it is the Executive will 
which is to direct it. In war the public treasures Eire to be unlocked, and it is the Executive hand 
which is to dispense them. In war, the honors and emoluments of otHce are to be multiplied, 
and it is the Executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that 
laurels are to be gathered, and it is the Executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest pas- 
sions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast — ambition, avarice, vanity, the hon- 
orable or venial love of fame — are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace. 

" Hence it has gi'own into an axiom, that the Executive is the department of power most dis- 
tinguished by its propensity to war; hence it is the practice of all States, in proportion as they 
are free, to disarm this propensity of its influence. 

" As the best praise, then, that can be pronounced on an executive magistrate is, that he is the 
friend of peace — a praise that rises in its value as there may be a known capacity to shine in war 
— so it must be one of the most sacred duties of a free people to mark the first omen in the society 
of principles that may stimulate the hopes of other magistrates of another propensitj?, to intrude 
into questions on which its gratification depends. If a free people be a wise people also, they 
will not forget that the danger of surprise can never be so great as when the advocates for the 
prerogative of war can sheath it iii a symbol of peace. 

" The Constitution has manifested a similarprudence in refusing to the Executive the soZe power 
of making peace. The trust, in this instance, also, would be too grer.t for the wisdom, ajid the 
temptations too strong for the virtue, of a single citizen." 

And there is another paragraph in one of the same papers of infinitely more 
significant import: 

" Those who are to conduct a war, cannot, in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, 
whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are bai-red from tl^e latter 
functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword 
from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws." 

Much has been said, in the course of this debate, Mr. Chairman, about the doc- 
trines of old fashioned Federalism. Now, here, sir, are the doctrines of old 
(ashioned Democracy, in the very language of one of its ablest and most honored 
masters. And how strangely do they contrast with the manifestoes of that mod- 
ern brood, which boast themselves so vaingloriously of their borrowed plumes! 
[n which one of these golden sentences of James Madison do you find any justifi- 
cation of the idea, that the Executive department of the Government is to be im- 
plicitly trusted in time of war, and that the vigilance of Congress is to sulfer it- 
self to be lulled asleep by the insipid opiate of a President's message? What can 
be moie emphatic than the declaration, that "those who are to conduct a war can- 
aot, in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges whether a war ought fa be 
commenced, continued, or concluded?'''' Who can read these paragraphs with- 
out being deeply impressed with the sentiment which pervades them, that if the 
true spirit of Democracy calls upon us ever to be jealous, with an exceeding 
;ealousy, of Executive power, it is when that power has been armed with the 
fearful prerogative of war, and when, as now, that prerogative is masked behind 
"a symbol of peace?" If the democratic sensibilities of James Madison were 
startled and shocked, when George Washington, that "prodigy of many centu- 
ries," as he well entitled him, thought fit to forestall the deliberations of Congress 
by issuing a proclamation of neutrality, what would he have said had he lived to 
see a President, "such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magis- 
tracy," not merely involving the country in war by his own acts, but proceeding 
to stigmatize as traitors all who may think fit to inquire into the causes of the 
war, or to judge for themselves whether it ought to be continued or concluded? 

But w^ have been told, Mr. Chairman, that whoever else may undertake to 
cavil at the course of the Administration in relation to this war, it does not be- 
iong to those who voted for it to do so. We were elegantly and courteously 



informed, some days ago, that the man who voted for the war, (meaning, ol 
course, for the bill of May 13,) and who how complains of the Executive, musi 
be little betteir than a knave. 

Now, sir, I voted for the bill of May 13, and I complain of the Executive; 
and I stand here to vindicate the character and the consistency of those to 
whom this foul epithet has been so flippantly applied. And let me say at 
once, that it is from the very fact that I voted for that bill, that I feel all the 
greater right, and all the greater obligation, to complain of the course of the Ad- 
ministration. 

What, sir, was the bill of May 13th? I deny totally that a vote for that bill 
was, in any just sense of the term, a vote for the war. It certainly does not lie 
in the mouth of the President, or any of his friends, to call it so. The Presi- 
dent told us on the 11th day of May that the war existed. It existed, as he 
said, and as the preamble of the bill repeated, " by the act of Mexico." It ex- 
isted, as many of us thought, who protested at the time against the justice o( 
the preamble, and have never ceased protesting against it from that day to this, 
by his own act. At any rate, the war existed, as the President said, as the 
bill said, as I thought then, and as I think still. For I have never doubted for 
a moment that a state of things had at that time been brought about, between 
this country and Mexico, which called for a recognition, on both sides, of the 
existence of a state of war. 

What, then, was the bill of May 13th? It was a bill to give to the Execu- 
tive the war power, to meet an exigency of existing war, and for the purpose of 
enabling him to accomplish the great purpose, which he so solemnly professed 
to have at heart, of re-establishing an honorable peace. This, sir, is what we 
on this side of the House voted for. 

Doubtless, our action was in some degree influenced by the condition of Gen. 
Taylor's army ; nor can I fail to protest against the assertion of an honorable 
member, that we must have known that the .army would have extricated itself 
before the succors authorized by the bill could reach them. We could not, by 
any possibility, have known any such thing. It might have been regarded as 
probable that Gen. Taylor would either have been victorious, or have been van- 
quished before that time. But not few nor feeble were the apprehensions that 
he might have been vanquished. And if such a result had occurred — if our 
army had been conquered, and the captives had been marched ofl'tothe mines, I 
leave it to others to take the responsibility of saying that there would then have 
been no occasion for men and money to rescue and redeem them. 

The exigency, however, was not one for calculating chances, or speculating 
on probabilities. The war existed; and I know of no mode of meeting an ex- 
isting war but by a prompt exercise of the war power. This is one of the casea 
to which the Irish maxim may be well applied, that " the best way to avoid a 
difficulty is to meet it plump." And so far, while I entertain the most perfect 
respect for those who diff*ered from me, and freely admit tliat the preamble of 
the bill furnished ample ground for honest and patriotic disagreement, I have 
nothing to regret in the vote which I gave for the substantial provisions of that 
bill. 

ButJiow, sir, comes the question, suggested by the remarks of more than 
one gentleman in this debate. Because we have voted, six months ago, under 
these circumstances, or under any other circumstances, to confer the war power 
upon the President, are we therefore bound to acquiesce in any and every mea- 
sure for which he may see fit to employ that power ? Because for these rea- 
sons, or for any reasons, we have entrusted that fearful prerogative to the officer 
(to whom the Constitution assigns it, when it is to be wielded at all, are we there- 



fore responsible for his whole exercise of it, and absolutely estopped from com- 

^'^^^;?i:'areXoXrylSrire,tdeed 1 Suppose, sir,, tha. the Presiden. 
had been found exercising this power with tameness. or with downngU trea- 
chery suppose he had suffered our armies to be taken captive and our strong- 
ho ds obe^ surrendered ; suppose he had invited an invasion o our undisputed 
nauonal soil on this side of the Nueces, or on this side of the Sabine.; suppose 
Te had be n discovered entering into traitorous agreement with the enemy and 
admitting their chosen leader not merely into their own territory bu iiuo our^ 
should we have had no right of arraigning him before the country ? No man 
will put forth so preposterous an idea. And if, on the other hand, he is found 
PP verting the authority, asked by him and given to him as an instrument of 
Teare to Ae purposes of invasion and conquest, and embarking the "ation in . 
S crusade of aggression and aggrandizement, is it not ^q-l >' our r.ght and 
our bounden duty to call him to account? Is it not especially the right, and pre- 
eminently the diuy, of those who have aided in giving him that power upou 
faTothe pretexts.^;nd for far other objects, to hold him to his responsibihty ? 
st I repeat^ is because the President holds this tremendous inslrumen 
part y by my vite, that I feel constrained to examine well into h.s course, and 
Tdemand o^f him vainly perhaps, but audibly and earnestly to remember his 
pledtes and to p^use from'the prosecution of a policy at total variance w.th the 
original intentiois of Congress, and with all the institutions and interests of our 

''Mn^Chainnan, in any remarks which I may see fit to ^^^^^-'"^^^^j^^J!^^!;' 
in relation to the existing war, I do not intend to just.fy the ^"du.H of Mexico 
I do not deny, I never haVe denied, that we have just cause of '^^'^Pl^/ l^^^^"^^^^ 
the Mexican Government. Grossly exaggerat^l as I regard many of he repre 
sentations of the President, and of his supporters on this A^-' ;!;;;/f TjJ /h,' 
claims of our citizens for spoliations upon our commerce, I Xf [^^^^^ f ."^'V^;'; 
Mexico has been much at fault in all this matter. Nor am I ^^'^P^^^^ to jlenj 
that she has been at fault in many other matters of move recent oc^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
She was wrong in not acknowledging the independence ;>/ ^exa^^ma^^^^^^ 
^go. She was wrong, when she at last proposed to make tl^^^/^^^^^^Xch 
in affixing to it a condition which could do her no manner of good, and which 
was surei be construed into an offence to oti.ers. She was w-ng in breakmg 
off so abruptly all diplomatic intercourse with the United States, when the ac 
of annexation had passed the two Houses of Congress She was ™g ^n '^^ 
receiving Mr. Slidell agreeably to the understanding between ^^^J^^^ ^^J"^^ 
ments, a's I conceive, when he was sent on a mission of P^^^^ .^^^^^.^'^^^^J^^^ 
aao She was wron<T in not returning a more concdiatory reply to the reneweQ 
IferJesoIL Administration in /uly last. And she will agam have be 
Won. if she shall have persisted, (as I fear,) on the assembling of her ne^^ 
Congress, in a final and unqualified rejection of all proffers f ."'^g" Jl) 1^ "'^^.^^i^^ 
I do not say that any, or all, of these acts have furnished the Administiat on 
with reasonable grounds for making war upon her. Far from it. ^orcanl 
say that I am altogether astonished that Mexico has pursued such a course. No 
man can wonder that the Mexican blood should have been roused by tl^e Policy 
which has been manifested by some portions of the American people^ She has 
had quite too much reason for apprehending that there was a settled Purpose "i 
this country of ultimately despoiling her of some o her most valuaWe domam^^^ 
• And unless we can discover some etherial vapor like that ^.e^^^^lX ' ^^^f ^'J 
preventing the pain of surgical operations, and which wdl render nations, as 
weTas individuals, insensible to their own dismemberment, we could hardly 
expect her to be entirely cool ia the contemplation ot such a process. 



10 



stood .oTay7fcSc„ ,haUff we' Tm"""" "^ f"' "'"' "'""''' "'«""''"- 
Geor.ria-„,ir.le"liMinvT,i '!."■'''" "° •"'"■"■"We member from 

is= :i— r;r f£S ■- f ■ "•-"■■ "' ■-; 

they had done enough to exhibirthe r . nn. ^ i . ^^«"\^. ^^7 to them that 
tation for cinirit onri .,,1^ • 1 ."^y* "^^ ^"sacly placed their renu- 

to put an end to tW i,r !L l ' ' ''""<'»'"■ ""'''""s some of us might be 
meLures bv which it wj, 'f ""T' "° "'S'" l"= "■ '""^^'^^S 'he 

prose'c^tlo'^or .?\L":asTr,:o;t;"'nd"„:™'™"'"^ 1"'' """^"4=^^ 
whom they eould expeet eithe'^^ .V^^^ ''',J^,'^?„' °, P -" ■" *;= country from 

wh,eh»shew'=;L^X?ed-s:^r.;r^^^^^^^^^ 

.t^^i^ln^-,::-- -t/°hf- :^ -- - r 

«ur side . Because Mexico ^^IC:S^l:^';^Xfl^^:^ 



11 

ideas of right and justice, am I therefore for pressing her to the wall with fire and 
sword ? Because she obstinately resists all overtures for negotiation, must I 
therefore sanction the policy of the Administration in overrunning her territory 
aSid seizing her dominions ? No such thing. I utterly condemn the manner in 
which the war was commenced, and the spirit in which it seems now about to 
be prosecuted, and I shall never hesitate to say so. 

As to the origin of the war, I shall say but few words. It should never be 
forgotten that its primary cause was the annexation of Texas; a measuire pressed 
upon the country, by its peculiar advocates, witti the view of strengthening, ex- , 
♦ending, and perpetuating the institution of domestic slavery. 

Sir, I cherish no feelings of ill will towards Texas. Now that she is a mem- 
ber of our Union, I would speak of her in the terms which belong to the inter- 
course of sister States. But I cannot fail to speak plainly in regard to the un- 
constitutional act of her annexation, and the disastrous consequences which have 
thus far attended it. Who forgets the glowing terms in which the addition of 
that lone star to our American constellation was heralded ! How mucli of pros- 
peiity and of peace, of protection to our labor, and of defence to our land, was 
augured from it ! Who now can reflect on its consequences as already develop- 
ed ; who can think of the deep wound which, in the judgment of many, it has 
inflicted on our Constitution ; of the alienations and heartburnings which it has 
produced among different members of the Union ; of the fearful lockings for of 
disunion which it has excited ; of the treasure it has cost, and the precious lives 
it has wasted, in the war now in progress ; of the poison it has in so many ways 
mingled with the previously healthful current of our national career; without 
being reminded of another lone star, which " fell from heaven, burning as it were 
a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of 
waters, and the name of the star is called Wornwood, and the third part of the 
waters became wormwood, and many men died T^f the waters because they were 
bitter!" 

The more immediate cause of the war was the Executive mode of consummat- 
ing this measure of annexation. Without entering at all into the question of the 
rightful boundaries of Texas, this is certain, that Congress, in the very resolution 
of annexation, recognised the fact of a disputed boundary, and declared that it 
should be settled by negotiation. The President so interpreted the resolution, 
and proceeded to profiler negotiation. I give him all due credit for that. But 
when he found that resort likely to fail, instead of coming to Congress for new 
, advice and new instructions, as he ought to have done, as James Madison would 
have done in conformity with those views of his which I have already cited, Mr. 
Polk determined, on his own responsibility, to resort to the sword, and marched 
his armies to the outmost verge of Texan pretensions. And no man can deny 
that this unwarrantable act of the Executive gave immediate occasioh and origin 
to the war with Mexico. , 

But, without another word as to its origin, I turn to a consideration of its pro- 
gress and prosecution ; and would that we all, of all parties, and I will add of 
both countries, instead of contenting ourselves with mutual criminations as te 
who began the war, could enter heartily into the far nobler competition, who 
should be the first, and who do the most, in bringing it to a close! 

For what end is the vigorous prosecution of this war now proposed ? For 
what purpose are we now called upon to give the Executive these ten new regi- 
ments of regular troops ? I will do the President the justice to take his own 
answer to these questions. I quote two paragraphs from his late annual mes- 
sage, which admit of no misrepresentation : 

"The war has not been waged with a view to conquest; but, iiaving been commenced by 
Mexico, it has been carried into the enemy's country, and wiJl be vigorously prosecuted there, 



12 



^at Mexico should be ^^^^^l^&ts^:^:^^^^^;:^^^ ^"^ "''''' " '^^ 

helnnvfrTV^'^ ^"' '" '^'' ^'''"^'^ '" ''^ " ^"^ ^°""^^ble peace." I ^ 

to u h^^lulf iZr^'""T'S^ '^P^'^^ which can really contribul^ 
to sucn a result, liut now comes the President's definition of this honnr^Ki. 
peuce : '« and thereby to secure ample indemnity for the ex^en e o t le war as 
well as^t. our much-injured citizens, who hold^arge peci;;iiary ctmngl" 

This, then, is the authentic account of the objects for which this war is tc, 

which by the largest construction can be called our country ; not even -to con 
quer a peace" in the simple sense of that phrase ; but to seljre h demnity for the 
clamis of our citizens, and for the expenses of the war. "^^emnity tor tlie 

Now, sir, to such a war, prosecuted in this spirit and for these ends I am nt 
terly opposed. I maintain, in the first place, that it is not the wa which Cot 

sanction. I know not how far party discipline may go in bringing up maioritiet 
hdtlrn ?"'''%'' "f "" ^""^^ ' P°''^^ ' ^"^ I hazard nothing^i^saX tha 

Why sir It "' f"" '"''''' '' T^^^ ^''' '"^^ "'^ ^-^'-" - anyViarter 

Why, sir, does any one for a moment believe that if Mexico had refrained from 
all hostile opposition to the annexation of Texas, and had given even th^ assent 
of a dogged silence to our extending our jurisdiction over that territory we slouhl 
have ever heard of these claim^s The ground of war ? The President would 

iidve scorned it, had it been made to them. 

and of ,lr'"''^"' Z'^u' ""T"^ Pi"''' 'h"' ^"^h ^ policy is unworthy of the land 
and of the age in vhich we live. Is this a day, is this a country, m which war 

indlnf.v f • ■"°' ""'''"''? 'h' importance of securing to our citizens ajust 

sihe aLdiiv t?'T'r'^™V^''^ "P"" ^^'"^ "^ ^"^' ^"^^'^••' ^"d -''-^-^v^r there 
IS the ability to make that indemnity, it ought to be exacted, sometimes, perhaps, 

even to the extent o force. And where it is exacted, and where it is secured 
the Government ought to pay it over to those to whom it belongs, as Mr. Polk 
has refused to do in the case of the French spoliations prior to 1800. But a 
war for extorting payment from a poor debtor ! Why, sir, the day has gone by 
when we endure the practice of coercing individuals who are unable to mfet therr 
^Pfi rr"'; , ""Pnsonment of poor debtors is r.pidly disappearing from the 
refined codes of civilized society. The abolition of ti.at system is among the 
wfnld sfp^'^P of modern civilization. But this policy of the Administration 
would seem to carry us back to the barbarous provisions of the laws of the Twelve 
JrpSr^iT" k'^^'I^^^^'^; ^^^^'-di"? to some constructions, allowed the 
creditors to dismember their debtors, and distribute among themselves the sever- 
ed limbs and mutilated trunks ! 

^.7^-'\?^'u ^h^^'"'^"' 5f dismemberment of Mexico for debts which she cannot 
pay, IS the humane and Christian policy proposed to us by the Executive. Mon- 
ey, we ail know, cannot be wrung from her in any lar^e sums. AVhat little she 
nught have had to pay to " our much injured citizens," we are daily exhausting 
by compellmg her to employ it in defending her own soil. Why. sir, this at- 
tempt to extort indemnities from Mexico by force of arms reminds one of an old 
story of ancient Greece. Theraistocles, it seems, besieged the island of Andros. 



13 

arid called upon the inhabitants to pay tribute. He told them that the Athenians 
had two great gods, to whom they ought to yield immediate submission. One 
of these gods was Persuasion and the other Compulsion. But the Andrians an- 
swered that they, also, had two gods — that one of them was Poverty and the other 
Impracticability ; and that they could not and would not pay him any tribute 
money. They added that his power could never surpass their powerlessness. 

Now, this seems to be about the state of things between us and Mexico, so 
far at least as money is concerned. I do not know but that we might regard her 
as having at least three of these heathen deities, and add the Fever — el Vomito 
—to Poverty and Impracticability. 

But she has territory, and this is the sort of indemnity which is sought. This 
indeed, it is now quite too evident, has been the great object of the whole Exe- 
cutive movement. Nobody can read the documents connected vi^ith this war, 
and especially those transmitted to us in answer to the call of my honorable 
friend from Kentucky, (Mr. Davis,) without seeing that, from first to last, before 
the w'ar and since, Mexican territory has been the great object of the Adminis- 
tration. It is hardly too much to say that, had there been no California, there 
would have been no war. As far back as June 24, 1845, we find the purpose of 
securing this possession, as the result of a possible war, plainly disclosed in the 
confidential correspondence of the Navy Department. After the war had once 
commenced, it is thus boldly avowed in a despatch of July 12, 1846 : 

" The object of the United States is, under its rights as a belhgerent nation, to possess itself 
entirely of Upper California.'' 

And again : % 

"The object of the United States has reference to ultimate peace with Mexico; and if, at 
that peace, the basis of the uti possidetis shall be establish(!d, the Government expects, through 
your forces, to be found in actual possession of Upper California." 

Now, sir, I am not about to depreciate the desirableness to the commerce of 
our country of a good harbor or two on the Pacific Ocean. If a strip of Cali- 
fornia could be added to our Oregon possessions, under proper circumstances, 
and with the general consent of the country, I should be one of the last persons 
to object to it. But the idea that it is worthy of us to take advantage of this 
war to wrest it from Mexico by force of arms, arid to protract the war until she 
will consent to cede it to us by a treaty of peace, I utterly repudiate. 

It is this lust of territory, Mr. Chairman, which has given occasion to this 
war, and which now proposes to prosecute the war with renewed vigor. It is 
an appetite which grows by what it feeds on. Texas seems only to have fur- 
nished a whet for our voracity. It was but the stimulating lunch to prepare us 
for a more substantial meal. Sheridan, in the Rivals, I think — my classical 
friend from South Carolina (Mr. I. E. Holmes) will correct me, if I am wrong — 
thought it a very good joke to make Mrs. Malaprop say that "she would have 
the young lady instructed in geometry, in order that she might k'now something 
of the contagious countries." The joke has lost its point for us. It seems as 
if all contiguous countries were going to be contagious to us, and as if we should 
soon be ready to adopt the language of another character in the same celebrated 
play, who said to his son, " Don't enter the same hemisphere with me ; don't 
dare to breathe the same air or use the same light ; but get an atmosphere and a 
sun of your own!" 

Meantime, while we are pursuing this wild career of national extension 
and aggrandizement, what has become of that peace which we were to 
have "conquered" three months ago! Sir, it seems (o be further of from 
us at this moment than ever before. Whatever gallant arms and brave gene- 
rals could do to secure it, has been done already. Cities have been captured ; 
fortresses have been stormed ; plains have been strewed with the dying and the 



14 

dead ; rivers have been reddened with blood ! But where is peace 1 At the 
end of what vista, however distant, do we see that promised and precious bles- 
sing ? It I believed that any amount of military force were necessary to esta- 
blish peace at this moment, I should be half inclined to give the Executive all, 
and more than all, that he could ask. But, in my judgment, no peace is to be 
acquired in the way this bill proposes to acquire it. We may conquer more 
armies ; we may overrun more territory; we may '< make a solitude and call it 
peace ;" but peace, in any true sense of that term, will still elude our pursuit. 
We shall find no Goveransent to make peace with, and no people who will con- 
form to the stipulations of any Government. The peace which such bills as ' 
this will give us, will be like that which France has conquered in Algiers. That 
war commenced in 1829, and France has now a hundred thousand soldiers on 
the Algerine soil to secure her barren conquest. This may do very well for 
France, who desires a training-field for her standing armies; but it will never, 
never do for this Republic. 

And where, too, is to be our domestic peace, if this policy is to be pursued ? 
According to the President's plan of obtaining " ample indemnity for the ex- 
penses of the war," the longer the war lasts, and the more expensive it is made, 
the more territory we shall require to indemnify us. Every dollar of appropri- 
ation for this war is thus the purchase-money of more acres of Mexican soil. 
Who knows how much of Chihuahua, and Coahuila, and New Leon, and Du- 
rango, it will take to remunerate us for the expenses of these ten legiments of 
regulars, who are to be enlisted for five years I And to what end are we thus 
about to add acre to acre and fie^l to field ? To furnish the subject of that great 
domestic struggle, which has already been foreshadowed in this debate ! 

Mr. Chairman, I have no time to discuss the subject of slavery on this occa- 
sion, noi sliould I desire to discuss it in this, connection, if I had more time. 
But I must not omit a few plain words on the momentous issue which has now 
been raised, I speak for Massachusetts — I believe I speak the sentiments of all 
New England, and of many other States out of New England — when I say, that, 
upon this question, our minds are made up. So far as we have power — consti- 
tutional or moral power — ta control political events, we are resolved that there 
shall be no further extension of the territory of this Union, subject to the insti- 
tutions of slavery. This is not a matter to argue about with us. My honora- 
ble friend from Georgia (Mr. Toombs) must pardon me if I do not enter inio any 
question with him whether. such a policy be equal or just. It may be that the 
North does not consider the institution of slavery a fit thing to be the subject of 
equal distribution or nice weighing in the balances. I cannot agree with him 
that the South gains nothing by the Constitution but the right to reclaim fugi- 
tives. Surely he has forgotten that slavery is the basis of representation in this 
House. 

But I do not intend to argue the'case. I wish to deal with it calmly, but ex- 
plicitly. I believe the North is ready to stand by the Constitution, with all its 
compromises, as it now is. I do not intend, moreover, to throw out any threats 
of disunion, whatever may be the result. I do not intend, now or ever, to con- 
template disunion as a cure for any imaginable evil. At the same time I do not 
intend to be driven from a firm expression of purpose, and a steadfast adherence 
to principle, by any threats of disunion from any other quarter. The people of 
New England, whom I have any privilege to speak for, do not desire, as I under- 
■stand their views — I know my owii heart and my own principles, and can at 
least speak for them — to gain one foof of territory by conquest, and as the result 
of the 'prosecution of the war with Mexico. I do not believe that even the abo- 
litionists of the North — though I am one of the last persons who would be en- 
titled to speak their sentiments — would be unwilling to be found in combination 



15 

with Southern gentlemen, who may see fit to espouse this doctrine. We desire 
peace. We believe that this war ought never to have been commenced, and we 
do not wish to have it made the pretext for plundering Mexico of one foot of her 
lands. But if the war is to be prosecuted, and if territories are to be conquered 
and annexed, we shall stand fast and forever to the principle that, so far as we 
are concerned, these territories shall be the exclusive abode of freemen. 

Mr. Chairman, peace, peace is the grand compromise of this question between 
the North and the South. I^et the President abandon all schemes of further 
conquest. Let him abandon his plans of pushing his forces to the heart of 
Mexico. Now, before any reverses have been experienced by the Americaa 
arms, he can do so with the highest honor. Let him exhibit a spirit of mag- 
nanimity towards a weak and distracted neighbor. Let him make distinct pro- 
clamation of the terms on which he is ready to negotiate ; and let those terms 
be such as shall involve no injustice towards Mexico, and engender no sectional 
strife among ourselves. But, at all events, let him tell us what those terms are 
to be. A proclamation of Executive purposes 'is essential to any legislal4ve or 
any national harmony. The North ought to know them ; the South ought to 
know them ; the whole country ought to understand for what ends its blood and 
treasure are to be expended. It is high time that some specific terms of acdora- 
modation were proclaimed to Congress, to Mexico, and to the world. If they 
be reasonable, no man will hesitate to unite in supplying whatever means may 
be necessary for enforcing them. 

And now, sir, what is the precise bill before us ? It is a bill to increase the 
standingKarmy of the country by the addition of ten new regiments of a thou- 
sand men each. It has no relation to the present support or relief of our army 
and volunteers now in Mexico. These regiments cannot, by any possibility, be 
recruited under a year, or a year and a half. The report of the At^jutant Gene- 
ral, dated 5th December last, distinctly shows this. He states that " the recruit- 
ing service has been pushed with'-vigor," and then proceeds to give us the results. 
He says : " The whole number of men enlisted from the 1st of October. 1845, 
to the 30th of September, 1846, is 5,945 ; being an excess of 2,388 over the 
previous year. The number enlisted in October and November, and to be en- 
listed in December, may be put down at 1,500.' 

If only 1,500 can be enlisted in three months, with " this vigorous pushing," 
it is plain that it will take a year to enlist 6,000, and another half year to com- 
plete the ten regiments. But it will take a much longer time than this. 

The authorized regular force, at this moment, is 16,998; or, deducting the 
commissioned officers, 16,218. But the whole rank and file of the army, not- 
withstanding the " vigorous pushing" of the recruiting service, could only be' 
computed at 10,000 on the 31st of December last. 

There are thus more than 6,000 men still to be enlisted under existing autho- 
rity, which, according to the estimates of the Ac^utant General, will require a 
full year, and thus postpone the completion of these new regiments to two years 
and a half ixom the present time. 

It is plain, therefore, that these new regiments are called for with no reference 
to any immediate exigencies, but only in contemplation of future distant service 
and a protracted war. 

The President has already in the field 24,984 men. Of these 8,473 are regu- 
lars, and 16,511 volunteers. He has already enlisted 1,500 more regulars, and 
about 9,000 more volunteers, making an aggregate force of about 36,000, He 
has authority, under existing laws, to increase the regular force to 17,000 and 
the volunteers to 50,000, making an aggregate force of 67,000 men. And now 
he calls for authority to raise 10,000 more of regulars. To what end is this 
vast array of militaivy f|weij ? The enlistment is to be during the war, or for 



16 

Jix>t years ! It cannot be completed under a year and a half or two years ! 
What visions of protracted conflict do these facts unfold ! 

The ^royiso of the bill authorizes the President to appoint the officers of 
these ten regiments during the recess of Congress, and to report them to the 
Senate at their next session. This ^roi-tso proves that these regiments are not 
expected to be in readiness for any present support or relief of the troops in 
Mexico. The officers are not to be appointed until Congress has adjourned.- 
What a power is this to confer on the President ! Nobody can imagine that the 
Senate can exercise any effective check upon appointments so made, and when 
the officers are once at their posts. Four or five hundred commissions, of all 
grades, from brigadier generals down to lieutenants, are thus to be placed in the 
hands of the President. Hov/ many of them are to be dangled in the eyes of 
members of this House, with the view of carrying measures which sdem now to 
meet with no particular favor, remains to be seen.. 

But the great objection to the bill is the policy which it discloses. In propos- 
ing this measure and that of the Lieutenant General, the Administration virtually 
call upon Congress to sanction the ultra and extravagant policy which they have 
recently adopted m regard to this war. I §ay recently adopted, for it is plain 
that a new spirit has come over the dream of the Executive on this subject. 

On the 11th of November last the Secretary of War addressed a letter, which 
^is in print, to a gentleman in Kentucky, in wliich he said: •' It is proper, how- 
ever, to say that the anioimt of force already in service is deemed sufficient for 
the prosecution of the war.^'' 

On the 16th day of the same November he issued a requisition for ten new 
regiments of volunteers to serve during the war. What occurred during these 
five days to change the whole policy of the Administration has never been dis- 
closed, but it is plain that a marvellous change was wrought. And in pursuance 
of it, these ten new regiments of regulars are now called for. This new policy- 
can be nothing less than one of invasion and conquest. 

The report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in June last said : "Texas, 
and indemnity for wrongs confessed by several treaties, coasts and borders in 
tranquil possession without transatlantic interference, are all we insist upon. It 
will be Mexican infatuation, should the contest become one of races, of borders, 
of conquest, and oj territorial extension.''' 

Mexican infatuation, I presume, is at length sufficiently manifested, and this 
contest of races, borders, conquest, and territorial extension is to be commenced. 
And this contest Congress is now called upon to sanction. If it be not so, the 
President can inform us. If this be the policy, I am entirely opposed to it, and 
ieel bound to express that opposition in the most unequivocal terms. 



' W46 






^' "o /.^^;r\ /.c>;z^^'^-o ,^^.i^>\ 













0^ .•^:^% ^ 












.*'"*. 












5^r 



'> 



■^\/ 'V'-B-/ \'^-^\/ V^^"/ 
v\.-^^..\ .-^o\;i>%% <j,^/;dk-\. **"•:■ 



(tf WERT U v^ -■ 

^ I BOOKBINDING | / ^ - 



feb 1989 



''^ <^^ 















-^ 

^v*. 









^iiliii 



r'wmm 



(I' 



h 



■l 




» 



HMM 

':!'!f "':!!!' lis lill 

:■■■■■ ■ .'■ '■/!!««!'. 






Ill 






''Bra 






m 



iilili 






iiii 



